Affirmative Action, Immigration and the Politics of Racial Solidarity

“Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites -- and Asians, when it suits them -- even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.”

Advocates of white identity politics have two basic arguments at their disposal. The first argument could be called the racial preservationist argument, and the second could be called the collective interest argument.

The first argument holds that national character reflects the genetics of the national population, therefore miscegenation and non-white immigration will radically alter the national character. As Jared Taylor put it, the future “Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America” will be totally unrecognizable to the founding fathers, and completely alien from the America we grew up in.

Whatever relationship exists between national genetics and national culture, the preservationist argument has largely failed to persuade white Americans. In 1958 only 4 percent of Americans approved of white-black marriage, by 2013 87% of Americans approved of white-black marriage. For millennials, the numbers are even higher.

But what about revealed preferences? For decades, white Americans have migrated from more homogeneous northern states to more diverse sunbelt states. In 2010, 9.4% of non-Hispanic white newlyweds married either a Hispanic person or a non-white person.

Undoubtedly, passionate opponents of interracial marriage still exist -- not all of them white -- but their arguments haven't persuaded many people. Any argument for white nationalism or white identity politics centered on the need for racial purity is pretty much dead on arrival, because most white people don't care about racial purity.

With appeals to racial purity out of fashion, racialists are left with appeals to collective interest. At the Alt-right press conference, Jared Taylor warned white people that their children wouldn't simply be a minority, but “the way things are going, a hated minority.”

This quote sticks out. Within our prison system, violent race riots have claimed the lives of many inmates. Prisoners largely segregate themselves by race, and enforce a fairly rigid system of racial separation. Based on past experience, race appears to be a particularly violent and nasty fault line.

Even people who aren't racist will band together along racial lines, if they perceive themselves to be under threat. Most liberals find the idea of white people being persecuted ridiculous, and at the present moment it is.

But the possibility of anti-white discrimination isn't as remote as many liberals would like to think. As J. Christian Adams documented, the Obama administration refused to prosecute minorities who engaged in voter intimidation. According to Adams they didn't simply drop charges against the NBPP members caught brandishing a club at voters in Philadelphia, they actually instructed the voting rights division not to prosecute any non-white person for voter intimidation.

If a white president refused to prosecute racist white thugs for intimidating black voters, black people would be rightfully alarmed. There is no reason to expect whites to react differently.

At this point, liberal readers will be saying to themselves, “blacks are twelve percent of the population, what do we have to worry about?”

Except, when America becomes a majority minority nation, future presidents will no longer have to depend on white votes to get elected. Future leaders could build a coalition of black and Hispanic voters, held together by shared interests.

If this is starting to make sense to liberal readers, keep reading, it gets worse. Non-white immigrants benefit from a host of affirmative action and “diversity” programs. In other words, immigration increases the political clout of affirmative action beneficiaries. Why exactly should white people welcome immigrants who will be favored over them?

Especially galling is the fact that many affirmative action beneficiaries are neither poor nor disadvantaged. What are poor whites in West Virginia supposed to think about millionaire Cuban immigrants being favored over them?

This author supports moderate immigration restriction of the type advocated by the likes of Jorge Borges or Mark Krikorian; however, he does not want white Americans to hate or fear non-white immigrants. Liberals, on the other hand, seem intent on pursuing policies almost guaranteed to revive white racism.

This article began with a quote from Jared Taylor's letter to cuckservatives. He should add liberals to his mailing list. Liberals supplied Jared with his most persuasive argument; they deserve a thank you note and a gift card.

In his “An open letter to cuckservatives”, Jared Taylor wrote,

“Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites -- and Asians, when it suits them -- even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.”

Advocates of white identity politics have two basic arguments at their disposal. The first argument could be called the racial preservationist argument, and the second could be called the collective interest argument.

The first argument holds that national character reflects the genetics of the national population, therefore miscegenation and non-white immigration will radically alter the national character. As Jared Taylor put it, the future “Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America” will be totally unrecognizable to the founding fathers, and completely alien from the America we grew up in.

Whatever relationship exists between national genetics and national culture, the preservationist argument has largely failed to persuade white Americans. In 1958 only 4 percent of Americans approved of white-black marriage, by 2013 87% of Americans approved of white-black marriage. For millennials, the numbers are even higher.

But what about revealed preferences? For decades, white Americans have migrated from more homogeneous northern states to more diverse sunbelt states. In 2010, 9.4% of non-Hispanic white newlyweds married either a Hispanic person or a non-white person.

Undoubtedly, passionate opponents of interracial marriage still exist -- not all of them white -- but their arguments haven't persuaded many people. Any argument for white nationalism or white identity politics centered on the need for racial purity is pretty much dead on arrival, because most white people don't care about racial purity.

With appeals to racial purity out of fashion, racialists are left with appeals to collective interest. At the Alt-right press conference, Jared Taylor warned white people that their children wouldn't simply be a minority, but “the way things are going, a hated minority.”

This quote sticks out. Within our prison system, violent race riots have claimed the lives of many inmates. Prisoners largely segregate themselves by race, and enforce a fairly rigid system of racial separation. Based on past experience, race appears to be a particularly violent and nasty fault line.

Even people who aren't racist will band together along racial lines, if they perceive themselves to be under threat. Most liberals find the idea of white people being persecuted ridiculous, and at the present moment it is.

But the possibility of anti-white discrimination isn't as remote as many liberals would like to think. As J. Christian Adams documented, the Obama administration refused to prosecute minorities who engaged in voter intimidation. According to Adams they didn't simply drop charges against the NBPP members caught brandishing a club at voters in Philadelphia, they actually instructed the voting rights division not to prosecute any non-white person for voter intimidation.

If a white president refused to prosecute racist white thugs for intimidating black voters, black people would be rightfully alarmed. There is no reason to expect whites to react differently.

At this point, liberal readers will be saying to themselves, “blacks are twelve percent of the population, what do we have to worry about?”

Except, when America becomes a majority minority nation, future presidents will no longer have to depend on white votes to get elected. Future leaders could build a coalition of black and Hispanic voters, held together by shared interests.

If this is starting to make sense to liberal readers, keep reading, it gets worse. Non-white immigrants benefit from a host of affirmative action and “diversity” programs. In other words, immigration increases the political clout of affirmative action beneficiaries. Why exactly should white people welcome immigrants who will be favored over them?

Especially galling is the fact that many affirmative action beneficiaries are neither poor nor disadvantaged. What are poor whites in West Virginia supposed to think about millionaire Cuban immigrants being favored over them?

This author supports moderate immigration restriction of the type advocated by the likes of Jorge Borges or Mark Krikorian; however, he does not want white Americans to hate or fear non-white immigrants. Liberals, on the other hand, seem intent on pursuing policies almost guaranteed to revive white racism.

This article began with a quote from Jared Taylor's letter to cuckservatives. He should add liberals to his mailing list. Liberals supplied Jared with his most persuasive argument; they deserve a thank you note and a gift card.